MikeTheC
Nov 3, 01:19 AM
I'd like to tackle a few points in the discussion here.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
nosen
Sep 25, 09:49 AM
Events are no fun without live coverage. :(
spicyapple
Sep 27, 08:51 AM
I like updates. :)
My build is currently 8J135. What happened to 8Kxxx?
My build is currently 8J135. What happened to 8Kxxx?
roadbloc
May 5, 12:21 PM
Hence, the "antivirus tax".
I fail to see how a free antivirus is a tax.
I fail to see how a free antivirus is a tax.
more...
brucem91
May 10, 03:59 PM
Choosing to run it in osx over windows is just stubborness if you ask me. When all's said and done, you're getting the exact same experience on windows side while in-game, except higher performance.
The current mobility 4850s in the iMacs CAN run sc2 at native resolution with fluidity. I run max settings and native resolution, spare portraits to 2d, and get 30 fps-- never dip below 24fps. (This is on windows side, the mac osx side gets 20 less fps on average, which is pretty pathetic)Well, like you said, I get the same experience in OS X, just slightly lower graphics settings. Which is fine for me. However, for me, I just prefer to not reboot my mac just for SC II, when it runs in OS X as well. Besides, I normally use iChat or Skype to get voice chat working, which I have set up in OS X. I can't wait though for a week or so when I can then play SC II on my Mom's 27" iMac. I have more VRAM on my MBP, but her screen is so much bigger, so I can't wait. Has anyone played SC II yet on the 27" iMac?
The current mobility 4850s in the iMacs CAN run sc2 at native resolution with fluidity. I run max settings and native resolution, spare portraits to 2d, and get 30 fps-- never dip below 24fps. (This is on windows side, the mac osx side gets 20 less fps on average, which is pretty pathetic)Well, like you said, I get the same experience in OS X, just slightly lower graphics settings. Which is fine for me. However, for me, I just prefer to not reboot my mac just for SC II, when it runs in OS X as well. Besides, I normally use iChat or Skype to get voice chat working, which I have set up in OS X. I can't wait though for a week or so when I can then play SC II on my Mom's 27" iMac. I have more VRAM on my MBP, but her screen is so much bigger, so I can't wait. Has anyone played SC II yet on the 27" iMac?
Tomorrow
Apr 1, 09:12 AM
Still holding at $3.48 as of this morning.
more...
MorphingDragon
Apr 15, 07:24 AM
And Microsoft Windows Server ? really ? Is it successful because I have to install 30 of those to run a simple SSO db like AD whereas I can run eDirectory off of 3 Sun boxes and achieve the same results with about 100 times more objects in the directory ?
God, haven't used eDirectory in ages, especially so since Novell has been a bit volatile. Been using a Mixture of FreeIPA/Zimbra OSE/Zimbra Collaboration the last couple of years, much faster and cheaper than a Microsoft stack.
So yes, Microsoft server is so successful because its just the best. :rolleyes:
They have literally held the industry back all through the 90s and early 00s, something we're just now breaking free of. Just for that, I would never lend them my expertise no matter the offer. It is an ethical and moral choice, not one based on some crazy love for one brand of products.
Don't forget the the near-brainwashing of Techs and Admins, keeping most businesses and service providers out of plain ignorance.
God, haven't used eDirectory in ages, especially so since Novell has been a bit volatile. Been using a Mixture of FreeIPA/Zimbra OSE/Zimbra Collaboration the last couple of years, much faster and cheaper than a Microsoft stack.
So yes, Microsoft server is so successful because its just the best. :rolleyes:
They have literally held the industry back all through the 90s and early 00s, something we're just now breaking free of. Just for that, I would never lend them my expertise no matter the offer. It is an ethical and moral choice, not one based on some crazy love for one brand of products.
Don't forget the the near-brainwashing of Techs and Admins, keeping most businesses and service providers out of plain ignorance.
RussOniPhone
Feb 18, 11:44 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I hope he is doing well, Steve is a BIG part of Apple I'll always think of Steve as one of the greatest people of our time, my heart goes out to him I hope he does a speedy recovery. We love you Steve.
I hope he is doing well, Steve is a BIG part of Apple I'll always think of Steve as one of the greatest people of our time, my heart goes out to him I hope he does a speedy recovery. We love you Steve.
more...
nkawtg72
Nov 6, 10:27 AM
i can't believe all the paranoia on this thread.
first of all, if it is simply an RFID Reader, then it doesn't broadcast crap about you. it senses an RFID Tag in proximity to your reader and reads the tag. software on the device then utilizes that tags info for some purpose.
secondly, if there is a tag in the device (iphone/ipod) then you'd have to be in proximity of a reader for it to be sensed and read. i would imagine that for privacy reasons a tag could be disabled dynamically by the user. or maybe even the device alerts the user that a reader is attempting to read its RFID and asks how the user would like to handle the situation.
lastly, anyone who is even remotely paranoid about such a technology coming to the iPhone/iPod had better already be on a cash basis, own no cell phone, not have internet access in their home or use it anywhere else, have no bank accounts whatsoever, not be a member of any clubs or enrolled in school, or be employed anywhere.
believe me, 99% of people are already engaging in enough activities that if big brother or big business wanted to know something about you, they'd have no problem finding it.
first of all, if it is simply an RFID Reader, then it doesn't broadcast crap about you. it senses an RFID Tag in proximity to your reader and reads the tag. software on the device then utilizes that tags info for some purpose.
secondly, if there is a tag in the device (iphone/ipod) then you'd have to be in proximity of a reader for it to be sensed and read. i would imagine that for privacy reasons a tag could be disabled dynamically by the user. or maybe even the device alerts the user that a reader is attempting to read its RFID and asks how the user would like to handle the situation.
lastly, anyone who is even remotely paranoid about such a technology coming to the iPhone/iPod had better already be on a cash basis, own no cell phone, not have internet access in their home or use it anywhere else, have no bank accounts whatsoever, not be a member of any clubs or enrolled in school, or be employed anywhere.
believe me, 99% of people are already engaging in enough activities that if big brother or big business wanted to know something about you, they'd have no problem finding it.
TwoSocEmBoppers
Feb 24, 09:59 AM
Wait. You live in The People's Republic of Massachusetts and you are astounded by this level of government nanny-ism?
Hahaha well originally from Southern California. Just going to school out here.
Hahaha well originally from Southern California. Just going to school out here.
more...
tsolt
Feb 18, 03:33 PM
Steve does not look too good. He looks rather skinny.
Thats what I thought.
Thats what I thought.
garybUK
Mar 16, 04:27 AM
Surely a 'Made in USA' car is a thing to avoid? Big, no style, bad engines (huge capacity with no power), poor reliability, nasty plastics inside.
Get a european one, more reliable (VW, BMW, Mercedes, Audi) far far superior technology in the engines, safer and better for the environment, plus you pump money into our economy :p
Some really sexy cars: VW Scirocco, BMW 3 Series Coupe, Renault Megane Coupe, Audi TT, Volvo C30.... plus they will last for years!
Get a european one, more reliable (VW, BMW, Mercedes, Audi) far far superior technology in the engines, safer and better for the environment, plus you pump money into our economy :p
Some really sexy cars: VW Scirocco, BMW 3 Series Coupe, Renault Megane Coupe, Audi TT, Volvo C30.... plus they will last for years!
more...
alongston
Dec 27, 11:58 PM
I often check into places just so I can see if any of my friends are there also (sporting events, concerts, etc). If you want to "check out" all you do is go to your profile and delete your check in.
SevenInchScrew
Jun 17, 08:08 PM
The older models aren't being produced anymore.
Understood, but there is no "Pro" version of this new one, so I'm not sure where you were going with that.
Understood, but there is no "Pro" version of this new one, so I'm not sure where you were going with that.
more...
scan300
Jul 3, 11:07 AM
Generally, if the printer driver is written for OS 9 or below, the printer supports postscript level 2, the printer has a localtalk serial connection and it supports appletalk it will work with your SE.
Basically all Apple Laserwriters fit this description.
I am 90% confident of this if your SE is running system 7 or above.
Basically all Apple Laserwriters fit this description.
I am 90% confident of this if your SE is running system 7 or above.
iJohnHenry
May 2, 08:58 PM
The problem is, is that your government is saying things, then going back on it. Nothing is making much sense.
The woman killed in the incident turned out not to be bin Laden's wife.
Not my government, and in the spirit of action, details of someone's status in life can sometimes be miss-reported.
So what?
The woman killed in the incident turned out not to be bin Laden's wife.
Not my government, and in the spirit of action, details of someone's status in life can sometimes be miss-reported.
So what?
more...
iJohnHenry
Apr 27, 04:44 PM
He's an empty windbag...
...worse than Bush.
Definitely over his head this time.
But fun will prevail, for those of us on the 'outside', looking in. :D
...worse than Bush.
Definitely over his head this time.
But fun will prevail, for those of us on the 'outside', looking in. :D
Thomas Veil
Apr 9, 07:38 PM
All right, let me rephrase that: government funds plenty of things, like libraries and parks, that aren't "necessary" but wanted. If you want to keep the argument on the federal level, substitute your own examples, including national parks. (Remember Bush trying to push them towards privatization?)
If you have a balanced budget, and you suddenly unbalance it with tax cuts, the difference between revenue loss and spending is pretty much a matter of semantics. You had the money, and now you don't. At least when you spend it on a service, you expect to get something for it.
Maybe one of the problems with House Republicans is that they don't think of tax cuts that they can't afford as spending.
If you have a balanced budget, and you suddenly unbalance it with tax cuts, the difference between revenue loss and spending is pretty much a matter of semantics. You had the money, and now you don't. At least when you spend it on a service, you expect to get something for it.
Maybe one of the problems with House Republicans is that they don't think of tax cuts that they can't afford as spending.
theblueone
May 3, 07:39 PM
I just joined anonymously, but I used the MacRumors team number.
Ish
Jan 11, 03:42 AM
Not bothered about push for myself. I'd just be happy if it let me connect to the different groups I use.
robbieduncan
Oct 6, 08:15 AM
Sounds like a very cool project. Well done on getting this far.
Without seeing the code or even using it my gut feeling would be that there is an issue with how you are specifying your path to the executable in your XGrid job/task. In Unixes (OSX, Solaris, BSD and for the purposes of discussion Linux) file locations are specified relative to the root of the filesystem or relative to the local path. If specified from the root the path starts /. This will not work on Windows where the path must start with the drive letter C:\. Even relative paths are an issue as Unixes use / for a directory separator and Windows uses \!
I imagine this is the root cause of your "Blender could not be found at current location" error.
Without seeing the code or even using it my gut feeling would be that there is an issue with how you are specifying your path to the executable in your XGrid job/task. In Unixes (OSX, Solaris, BSD and for the purposes of discussion Linux) file locations are specified relative to the root of the filesystem or relative to the local path. If specified from the root the path starts /. This will not work on Windows where the path must start with the drive letter C:\. Even relative paths are an issue as Unixes use / for a directory separator and Windows uses \!
I imagine this is the root cause of your "Blender could not be found at current location" error.
bsamcash
Mar 26, 03:17 PM
He rich, yet he wears the same thing every day?
BWhaler
Sep 1, 12:15 PM
This is, of course, due to the release of a new version of OS X every 18 months or so compared to the ridiculous periods between Windows versions.
Agreed.
Agreed.
apple101
Dec 28, 09:14 AM
My towns on the list. North Jersey (in Bergen County) town. Awesome.
How does Apple let AT&T get away with this.
How does Apple let AT&T get away with this.
No comments:
Post a Comment